SCRIBAL PRACTICES AND APPROACHE S ... - Emanuel Tov

212 Chapter 5: Writing Practices
4QJer a : The base text of this scroll is very close to MT. A striking example of their affinity is the unusual
spelling hnyht common to MT and 4QJer a XII 8 (Jer 18:21), elsewhere always spelled hnyyht in MT (30 times,
including three times in Jeremiah, together with fourteen instances of ˆyyhtw). Only in the MT of Jer 18:21 and 48:6
is the defective spelling hnyht found. Beyond this closeness to MT, the scroll contains twenty-eight corrections,
mainly towards a text identical to that now named MT. Thus col. XI 7–9 contains as many as eight corrections,
erasures, and supralinear additions, or combinations thereof. Consequently, it appears that this scribe was more
prone to errors than other scribes. Some of the mistakes are influenced by words in the context, such as the
duplication of the previous word and its subsequent correction; others reflect haplography or other types of oversight
(E. Tov, DJD XV, 153).
1QIsa b : This carefully copied text contains eight interlinear corrections, mainly towards a text identical to that
now named MT. Otherwise, this text, which presents a relatively large text for comparison with MT (from ch. 38 to
the end of the book, with some gaps), is very close to the medieval codex L.
MasEzek: This scroll, which is very close to MT, contains four corrections towards the text which is now
named MT (Talmon, Masada VI, 68). It appears that these corrections were based on the scribe’s Vorlage, and not
on an external source as suggested by Talmon, ibid.
In all these texts, correction towards an external source is not impossible, in which case one would have to
assume that these texts which are already close to what became the medieval MT were corrected towards a central
(standard) text, such as the ‘corrected copy’ (hgwm rps) mentioned in b. Pes. 112a (ch. 2j). However, most
corrections agreeing with MT seem to be corrections of simple mistakes; therefore it is likely that either the first or a
later scribe or reader corrected the manuscript towards its base text in the case of an error by the original scribe, and
that this base text agreed with the medieval MT.
• Corrections in texts written in the Qumran scribal practice. In the biblical and nonbiblical texts which were
written in the Qumran scribal practice and which therefore are quite different from MT, several corrections remove
that text even further away from MT. Presumably these corrections were not based on an external source, but rather
followed an orthographic framework which the scribe had in mind and from which he sometimes deviated. For
example
1QH a IV (Suk. = Puech XIII) 5 a yk = ayk
11QT a (11Q19) LX 15 ta w zh = tawzh
11QPs a : This manuscript contains twenty-six supralinear corrections (see DJD IV, 13 for a list, to which III 8,
15 should be added) and four instances of cancellation dots (see ibid.). That 11QPs a was probably not corrected
according to an external manuscript is supported by the fact that the same types of corrections are found in both the
canonical and non-canonical sections of that scroll.
1QIsa a : The 110 orthographic corrections in this manuscript (Kutscher, Language, 423) pertain mainly to
matres lectionis added to the base text, sometimes in agreement with MT, but more often in accordance with the
scribe’s conventions elsewhere in the scroll; more appear in section written by scribe A (cols. I–XXVII) than in the
second part, especially with regard to gutturals (Giese, “Further Evidence”). That these corrections reflect the
scribe’s personal insights rather than an external source 281 is evident from several faulty corrections. For example
1QIsa a I 9 (Isa 1:7) tkp a mk = tkpamk (MT: tkphmk and thus also 1QIsa a in Isa 13:19)
1QIsa a XVI 32 (Isa 21:15) twbr h = twbrh (MT: twbrj)
4QTest (4Q175): The Deuteronomy section (Deut 33:8-11) in this scroll was clearly based on a text such as
4QDeut h and the LXX, and not MT. This text was corrected three times towards a text now named MT, although
in six other details in the same pericope 4QTest was not corrected. For the data, see J. A. Duncan, DJD XIV, 69.
Since these other details are more significant than the three possible corrections towards MT, the assumption of
correction towards MT is less likely.
d. Correction procedures
Most scribes were not consistent in the use of any of the mentioned correction systems.
Single letters were usually deleted by means of dots being placed above and below them, long
stretches were deleted with parenthesis signs, and words written in the wrong place were crossed
out with a line. At the same time, some complete words were dotted, crossed out, or erased.
Much depended on the personal preference of the scribe, and apparent inconsistency may have
been created by the involvement of different scribes and readers in the same manuscript.
281 Thus S. Talmon, The World of Qumran from Within (Jerusalem/Leiden 1989) 78 with examples.